The Holocaust in the Netherlands and the Rate of Jewish Survival

Transcription

Research Note
The Holocaust in the Netherlands
and the Rate of Jewish Survival
Marnix Croes
Research and Documentation Center of the Netherlands Ministry of Justice
One central question in Dutch historiography is why such a high percentage
of Jews from the Netherlands died in the Holocaust. In this article, a recent
dissertation on the rate of survival of Jews in the Netherlands is mobilized
to shed light on the discussion of the low survival rate there. Wide variations
in survival rates throughout the country call into question easy explanations for the overall (low) rate. In particular, the greater success of the
Sicherheitspolizei in hunting down hidden Jews in certain parts of the
country calls for more attention.
For scholars of the Holocaust, the low survival rate of the Jews from the Netherlands
remains a mystery. Of the 140,000 people (native and immigrant) whom the Nazis
considered “full” Jews in 1941, only 27 percent survived the occupation. Yet in
Belgium, 60 percent of the approximately 66,000 Jews survived, and in France, 75
percent of the approximately 320,000 Jews escaped death at the hands of the Nazis.
Given the comparative weakness of antisemitism in the Netherlands, how can this
remarkably low survival rate be explained? Scholars have offered varied and sometimes contradictory explanations. In recent years, several have tried to summarize
the state of the debate.1
To explain the national differences in survival rate, historians distinguish
between the roles of the German perpetrators, the Dutch bureaucracy, and the
Dutch population at large, and those of the victims. By pointing out some of the particularities of the Dutch case, scholars have sketched the beginning of an explanation. Unfortunately, historians have not thoroughly tested their hypotheses. Pim
Griffioen and Ron Zeller employ a more analytical approach than most historians,
and thus are able to eliminate some hypotheses. But even they, in my opinion, do not
test, adequately or at all, the explanations that have been put forward.
Peter Tammes and I have sought to put the testing of hypotheses at the heart
of our work.2 Although the research for our dissertation focused on explaining the
variation in the rate of survival of Jews within the Netherlands, the results have major
implications for possible explanations of the relatively low survival rate of Jews in that
country overall. More fundamentally, the finding that this rate systematically varied
with individual, local, and regional characteristics raises questions for historians
researching national differences. A focus on aggregate national percentages minimizes
474
doi:10.1093/hgs/dcl022
Holocaust and Genocide Studies, V20 N3, Winter 2006, pp. 474–499
individual, local, and regional differences. In that way, certain significant parts of the
explanation receive too little attention while insignificant parts receive too much. In
our dissertation Tammes and I show how to go about systematically studying and
comparing within-country variation. Our methods could (and ought to) be used for
comparison among countries as well.
In this article I first present the main hypotheses of Johan Cornelis Hendrik
Blom and Bob Moore, and the contributions of Pim Griffioen and Ron Zeller. Then
I explain how Tammes and I determined which of the Jews in the Netherlands did
survive the persecution and which did not. I briefly present the major findings of this
study on individual, local, and regional patterns in the survival rate. Next I discuss the
implications of these results for the way historians study national differences in survival rates. Finally, I consider some matters that are neglected in historiography but
that add to the explanation of why only a small number of Jews from the Netherlands
survived.
Historiography and the Jewish Victimization
Rate in the Netherlands
Blom
To explain the low survival rate, Blom3 distinguishes between the persecutors, the
“setting” (bureaucracy, population, geography), and the victims. Blom stresses the
role of the German civilian administration that Hitler granted the Dutch in 1940 as a
“Germanic” people. This administration was ideologically and organizationally very
purposeful. In its ranks the SS and Nazi Party had a strong presence, in contrast to
the countries under military administration such as France and Belgium. Moreover,
four out of five of the leading functionaries were not just Nazis but Austrian Nazis,
prone to especially strong antisemitic convictions. These officials always showed a
unity of purpose when it came to persecuting the Jews, despite the internal conflicts
that generally characterized National Socialist rule. According to Blom, such harmony did not prevail in France and Belgium, where the relative unwillingness of the
Wehrmacht to play its part in the persecution led to many problems and delays in its
execution.4
To explain the “success” of the persecution of the Jews in the Netherlands,
Blom considers the country’s geography and the role of the Dutch bureaucracy and
population just as important as the characteristics of the German perpetrators. Geographically, the Jews were worse off than in France and Belgium. First, they could
not flee to thinly populated and forested regions where it was easier to hide, since the
Netherlands was heavily populated and lacked forests; second, escape over a “friendly”
border was more difficult since the Netherlands was surrounded by Germany,
occupied Belgium, and the sea.5 Blom suggests that the relative lack of prewar antisemitism in the Netherlands might have given the Jewish inhabitants a false sense of
475
security.6 The segmentation of Dutch society7 along denominational lines could also
have played a role, since that might have made the isolation of the Jews prior to their
deportation seem more acceptable to the Dutch.8 On the whole, the Dutch reacted
to the German occupation, including the persecution of the Jews, with a high degree
of cooperation, following their reputed tradition of deference to authority. This did
not change when the deportations started, and it lasted until the beginning of 1943,
when Germany’s prospects for winning the war appeared to be fading after the Battle
of Stalingrad.9 The Belgians seem to have been more resistant to the persecution of
the Jews generally, while the Vichy regime in France resisted the persecution of
native-born French Jews, but cooperated in the persecution of immigrants (both naturalized and non-naturalized). Resistance to the German occupation in these countries was organized earlier than in the Netherlands.10
However, Blom’s analysis does not count these factors decisive in the low survival rate of Jews in the Netherlands. Instead, he emphasizes the quality, effectiveness, thoroughness, and efficiency of the Dutch bureaucracy.11 The almost complete
registration of the civilian population and the hard-to-forge Dutch identity cards
were the most important factors in this context. In Belgium and France there existed
a tradition of opposition to or evasion of government authority—resulting in lessefficient types of population registration. In the Netherlands, by contrast, there was
for a long time little doubt that the bureaucracy would not sabotage Germanimposed measures, and in fact these were thoroughly implemented.
The third and final area of analysis—the behavior of the victims—seems in my
reading of Blom the least important in explaining the survival rate. However, he still
suggests cautiously that the docility of the Jewish Council in the Netherlands might
have played a role.12 On the background characteristics of the Jews, Blom’s analysis
becomes so cautious that clarity seems to suffer. For instance he supposes that, in
contrast to France, foreign Jews in the Netherlands might have survived at a higher
rate than Dutch Jews.13 But why Blom believes this should have been the case
remains ambiguous.
Moore
In the book he published eight years after Blom’s article, Moore14 puts forward several
potential explanations of why foreign Jews, especially German ones, might have been
less vulnerable than Dutch Jews. First, most of the Jews who came from Germany
knew what to expect of a German occupation, which made it likely that they acted
sooner than Dutch Jews to save themselves.15 Moreover, German Jews held key positions within the Jewish Council in Amsterdam and the Jewish administration in the
transit camp (Judendurchgangslager) of Westerbork, so they were able to postpone the
deportation of their compatriots and thereby increase the latter’s survival rate.16
Moore’s other explanations expand upon Blom’s to a large extent. Moore deals
first with the survivors: the Jews who were exempted from deportation until the end
476
Holocaust and Genocide Studies
of the war, the Jews who fled abroad, and the Jews who hid themselves. According to
Moore, 25,000 Jews went underground. Although about 10,000 of them were caught,
those in hiding were still the single largest group of survivors. Even so, most Jews did
not hide, and “the majority did not even make the attempt.”17 This was not just for
practical reasons, such as having to look after parents and children, but also because
of “the deference to authority felt by the majority of Jews in the Netherlands.”18
Many others simply lacked the money or could not find a safe place to hide. The
Dutch-organized resistance came into being only at a later stage during the war, after
most of the Jews had been deported.19
For other factors influencing the low survival rate, Moore essentially repeats
Blom’s explanations. Dutch geography made it more difficult to flee or hide; the SS
and antisemitic Austrians in the German civil administration were influential; the
Germans effectively carried out the persecution; the Dutch bureaucracy assisted the
Germans, primarily through population registration; the Dutch police helped and
Dutch bounty hunters, lured by blood money, tracked down Jews in hiding.20
Griffioen and Zeller
Griffioen and Zeller21 ask the same question: Why did so few Jews in the Netherlands
survive? After repeating Blom’s stress on the influence of the SS at the top of the
civilian administration headed by Hitler’s plenipotentiary Arthur Seyss-Inquart, they
concentrate on how the deportations in the Netherlands and Belgium were organized.22 The German deportation machine in the Netherlands ran much more
smoothly than in Belgium, using intimidation and deception whenever and wherever
possible. In Belgium the machine faltered because too much pressure was put on the
Jews right from the start: the result of this was that many of the Jews were not fooled
or intimidated, but instead large numbers rushed into hiding, assisted by non-Jews.23
The latter helped at the appropriate time, unlike so many Dutch Gentiles.
The Resistance organizations in the Netherlands came into being starting around
May 1943, when most of the Jews who would die had already been killed. According to
Griffioen and Zeller, at the moment when Jews were looking for safe hideouts, food,
and false identity cards, these were hard to find. Moreover, there was no large Jewish
resistance organization in the Netherlands, so the Jews there concentrated on the
“legal” possibilities for avoiding deportation, which in the end only postponed their
fate. The Jews in Belgium did organize themselves, building on preexisting organizational networks. Thus, large numbers were already in hiding by September and
October 1942. Although the total number of Jews who hid was the same in Belgium
and the Netherlands (25,000), the relative number was much larger in Belgium.24
Unlike Blom and Moore, Griffioen and Zeller downplay the role of geography.
But here (as in some other cases discussed below) I find their logic unconvincing.
According to Griffioen and Zeller, the fact that from mid-1943 until the end of the
war between 200,000 and 300,000 Dutch men trying to evade forced labor in
477
Germany found refuge underground shows that hiding opportunities were not primarily determined by the Dutch landscape.25 However, the fact that Dutch Gentiles
managed to hide does not necessarily mean that a more favorable landscape could
not have improved the rate of survival of Jews who were unable to find refuge.
***
Since the central question of why so few Jews from the Netherlands survived is
inherently quantitative, historians have come up against a mismatch between their
question and the methods used to answer them. Inevitably, the scholars mentioned
base their generalizations on a limited number of observations. Just how representative these observations are remains in question. Furthermore, comparisons of the
effect of supposedly influential factors in different countries can be challenged: When
can one state with certainty how much various factors mattered?
A quantitative question calls for a quantitative approach relying upon primary
sources. In our dissertation, Tammes and I employed such an approach. Although
our study compares rates of survival only within the Netherlands, the results are relevant to broader questions. Below I will discuss our methods and most important findings, moving on after that to the implications of these findings for the debate over the
low rate of Jewish survival in the Netherlands as opposed to that in other countries.
The Survival Rate
To determine whether individual Jews from the Netherlands survived the Holocaust,
Tammes and I used two kinds of sources: original registration lists, compiled during the
occupation, and In Memoriam,26 a book that gives personal information for those Jews
who did not survive the German occupation, based on the original lists of deportees,
archival materials, and additional information derived from postwar testimonies.
Almost all of the registration lists are based on the general registration of Jews
in 1941. At the beginning of January of that year, Reichskommissar Seyss-Inquart
ordered everyone with at least one grandparent of Jewish descent to register before
February 24. As far as is known, hardly anyone refused to do so.27 A total of 160,820
people registered themselves, of whom the Nazis perceived 140,001 to be Jewish,
namely those with at least three grandparents of Jewish descent.28
During the registration process special forms were used to record personal
information. This information was copied to catalog cards in the population register;
afterward, the forms were sent to the Rijksinspectie van de Bevolkingsregisters
(Inspectorate of Registries, RvB) in The Hague. Using the registration forms, the
Inspectorate produced two copies of a special card catalog of Jews. One copy was
assigned to the Zentralstelle für jüdische Auswanderung, the German agency responsible for the selection of the Jews to be transferred to Westerbork.29 In mid-July 1942
the transport of Jews from Westerbork to the death camps started.
478
Elderly Jewish couple on their way from Hooghalen to the Westerbork transit camp, October 1942.
Dutch constable stands behind. Photo Archives, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, courtesy
of Trudi Gidan.
Although the RvB was assisted by twenty-five typists from the Jewish Council
in the production of the card catalogs, the process took several months. The sheer
number of Jews in Amsterdam—80,000—delayed the entire project. For the German
Sicherheitspolizei, this was too much time: it wanted to know the extent of the “Jewish
threat” in the Netherlands as soon as possible. That is why it began to instruct the
Dutch municipalities province by province to hand over lists of their Jewish inhabitants. The provinces of Overijssel, Zeeland, and Zuid-Holland got this assignment as early
as January 1941. In March Friesland and Noord-Holland followed, Utrecht in June,
and Limburg in October 1941. However, not just the Sicherheitspolizei was interested in the Jews. In the province of Gelderland it was the Devisenschutzkommando
(German currency police) that demanded lists of Jewish inhabitants in April 1941;
479
in Middelharnis the local German Ortskommandant demanded the lists, the first in
March, and then a second one in September 1941.30
Even though the burgomasters were obliged to report to the RvB and the
Sicherheitspolizei any changes in the status of those registered, the Sicherheitspolizei
again instructed the municipalities to produce lists of Jewish inhabitants in 1942. The
provinces of Noord-Holland and Zeeland were the first to do so, in February 1942,
probably a last checkup in preparation for the forced move of Jews in these provinces
to Amsterdam preparatory to their transfer to Westerbork. Zuid-Holland followed
suit in May, and the rest of the country in June 1942.31
After the liberation, the new Dutch government would seem to have decided
that it did not want any incriminating material in the archives. Therefore the original
archival material pertaining to the registration of the Jews, including the registration
forms the municipalities had sent to the RvB, was destroyed. The central authorities
then instructed the municipalities at the end of April 1946 to send for destruction the
population registration cards that were marked with a “J” for “Jew.”32
However, most of the lists the municipalities produced for the Sicherheitspolizei or the Devisenschutzkommando in 1941 and 1942 escaped destruction
because many of the municipalities kept a copy for their own records. With digitized
versions of these lists and In Memoriam, it proved possible to establish the percentage of surviving Jews in 306 out of the total of 496 municipalities that had Jewish
inhabitants as of October 1, 1941.33 The number of Jews on these lists is 126,619,
with an average national survival rate of 29.6 percent. Since Gerhard Hirschfeld has
convincingly calculated that only 27.1 percent of the Jews from the Netherlands survived the German occupation, 34 this means that the survival rate that Tammes
and I calculated for the municipalities is on average only 2.5 percentage points too
high.35 This overestimation probably reflects small variations and mistakes in the
names and birthdates on the registration lists as well as in In Memoriam. These
divergences disrupted our computerized data-linking procedure.36
Figure 1 depicts the number of Jewish inhabitants and percentage of survivors
per province and gives an idea of the regional variation in both. The provinces of
Drenthe, Groningen, and Noord-Holland were the most dangerous, Limburg, Utrecht,
and Zeeland the least.
The largest part of our work consists of attempts to explain the differences in survival rates.37 According to our research, these variations were not coincidental: there
were patterns. By making use of quantitative data analysis (multivariate multilevel analysis), we were able to pinpoint the effects of several factors on the survival rate, measuring these factors at different levels of analysis: micro-level (the individual), meso-level
(municipalities), and macro-level (districts of the Sicherheitspolizei). The most important results are summed up below. They cover the forty-seven municipalities that had
at least one hundred Jewish inhabitants. Thus, municipalities with extreme survival
rates (zero or one hundred percent) as a result of small absolute numbers are left out.
480
Table 1
Number of Jewish Inhabitants of Dutch Provinces and Municipalities in October
1941, Percentage of Jews Surviving the German Occupation of the Netherlands,
1940–1945a
Number
%
Groningen
Bedum
Delfzijl
Groningen
Haren
Hoogezand
Leek
Muntendam
Nieuwe Pekela
Oude Pekela
Sappermeer
Termunten
Veendam
Vlagtwedde
Wildervank
Winschoten
Winsum
4,708
2
139
2,881
56
89
69
14
30
118
37
22
107
115
122
430
14
22.1
0.0
25.0
23.0
50.9
18.2
23.2
21.4
43.3
14.5
48.6
23.8
13.7
23.6
20.7
12.1
14.3
Drenthe
Assen
Beilen
Borger
Coevorden
Dalen
Eelde
Emmen
Gieten
Hoogeveen
Meppel
Odoorn
Roden
Rolde
Ruinen
Smilde
Wijk, de
Zuidlaren
Zweelo
2,498
427
57
14
143
16
1
177
23
208
250
12
12
12
11
13
2
17
2
20.0
12.9
24.6
0.0
14.0
18.8
100.0
25.7
4.3
33.5
22.0
50.0
8.3
8.3
9.1
15.4
50.0
17.6
0.0
Noord-Brabant
Bergen op Zoom
Boxmeer
Breda
Oss
Tilburg
Veghel
2,281
44
17
197
354
326
24
48.1
65.9
17.6
50.0
31.4
63.9
33.3
Gelderland
Aalten
6,642
78
38.9
59.0
Number
Friesland
Barradeel
Bolsward
Dokkum
Franeker
Harlingen
Heerenveen
Ijlst
Leeuwarden
Leeuwarderadeel
Lemsterland
Ooststellingwerf
Opsterland
Smallingerland
Sneek
Tietjerkstradeel
Weststellingwerf
Wymbritseradeel
Overijssel
Almelo
Ambt Delden
Avereest
Bathmen
Blokzijl
Borne
Dalfsen
Den Ham
Denekamp
Deventer
Diepenheim
Diepenveen
Enschede
Goor
Haaksbergen
Hardenberg
Hasselt
Heino
Hellendoorn
Hengelo
Holten
Kampen
Losser
Markelo
Oldenzaal
Olst
Ommen
Ootmarsum
%
852
1
1
1
19
45
42
2
604
28
3
4
18
22
42
3
5
1
33.8
0.0
100.0
100.0
63.2
4.5
30.8
100.0
31.3
40.0
66.7
100.0
41.2
40.9
53.7
66.7
80.0
100.0
4,385
399
3
45
10
8
95
6
7
53
587
11
11
1,264
32
55
38
11
1
22
312
52
39
20
11
66
7
54
11
43.3
42.9
100.0
20.0
0.0
37.5
33.7
100.0
28.6
28.3
41.7
9.1
54.5
52.1
62.5
66.7
13.2
36.4
100.0
45.5
50.3
36.5
23.1
92.3
0.0
16.9
85.7
35.2
9.1
continued
481
Table 1
continued
Number
%
Arnhem
Bergh
Dinxperloo
Ede
Hengelo
Hummelo en Keppel
Nijkerk
Nijmegen
Rheden
Tiel
Winterswijk
Wisch
Zutphen
1,810
35
82
83
41
39
59
523
90
54
260
68
492
41.6
37.1
50.6
65.4
41.5
29.4
27.1
28.9
70.9
71.2
19.4
68.8
28.5
Limburg
Beek
Eygelshoven
Geleen
Gennep
Heel en Panheel
Heer
Heerlen
Heythuijsen
Kerkrade
Maastricht
Melick en Herkenbosch
Nieuwenhagen
Oirsbeek
Roermond
Vaals
Venlo
Weert
1,441
23
8
55
45
1
31
124
1
47
418
2
11
3
110
49
145
1
48.8
66.7
25.0
36.4
37.8
100.0
19.4
52.0
0.0
53.3
49.5
0.0
90.9
100.0
45.4
44.9
55.6
100.0
174
8
11
72
12
38
1
55.8
71.4
100.0
55.6
33.3
45.9
100.0
87,566
2
187
77,252
3
1
7
11
27
48
26.6
50.0
35.7
25.3
100.0
100.0
100.0
27.3
61.5
46.8
Zeeland
Goes
Kapelle
Middelburg
Terneuzen
Vlissingen
Wolphaartsdijk
Noord-Holland
Aalsmeer
Alkmaar
Amsterdam
Andijk
Anna-Pauwlowna
Assendelft
Bennebroek
Bergen
Beverwijk
Number
Raalte
Rijssen
Stad Delden
Staphorst
Steenwijk
Steenwijkerwold
Tubbergen
Vollenhove
Vriezenveen
Weerselo
Wierden
Wijhe
Zwartsluis
Zwolle
Zwollerkerspel
Utrecht
Abcoude
Achttienhoven
Amerongen
Amersfoort
Baarn
Breukelen
Bunschoten
De Bilt
Doorn
Driebergen-Rijsenburg
Eemnes
Houten
Jutphaas
Leersum
Loenersloot
Loosdrecht
Maarn
Maarssen
Maarsseveen
Maartensdijk
Mijdrecht
Montfoort
Oudenrijn
Rhenen
Soest
Tienhoven
Utrecht
Veenendaal
Veldhuizen
Vinkeveen en Waverveen
Vleuten
Westbroek
Woudenberg
Zeist/Den Dolder
%
43
114
33
4
93
2
3
3
19
15
49
4
12
658
10
14.3
14.9
44.8
50.0
54.9
50.0
100.0
66.7
73.7
93.3
46.9
100.0
16.7
35.4
30.0
3,802
17
14
3
633
119
4
1
216
71
95
1
2
52
1
1
88
12
4
3
184
3
3
3
10
73
4
1,908
22
7
1
1
16
1
229
51.1
41.2
42.9
66.7
50.0
61.3
75.0
0.0
51.9
44.3
60.6
100.0
50.0
36.5
100.0
100.0
75.6
100.0
75.0
0.0
63.4
0.0
100.0
66.7
70.0
59.4
100.0
45.9
61.9
0.0
100.0
0.0
50.0
100.0
67.0
continued
482
Table 1
continued
Blaricum
Bovenkarspel
Broek in Waterland
Castricum
Den Helder
Diemen
Edam
Egmond aan Zee
Egmond Binnen
Enkhuizen
Graft
’s-Graveland
Grootebroek
Haarlem
Haarlemmerliede-Spaarnwoude
Haarlemmermeer
Heemstede
Heerhugowaard
Heiloo
Hoogkarspel
Hoogwoud
Hoorn
Huizen
Koog-aan-de-Zaan
Kortenhoef
Krommenie
Landsmeer
Langedijk
Medemblik
Monickendam
Muiden
Naarden
Nieuwer-Amstel
Obdam
Oostzaan
Ouder-Amstel
Purmerend
Schagen
Schermerhorn
Schoorl
Sint Maarten
Terschelling
Texel
Uitgeest
Uithoorn
Urk
Ursem
Velsen
Weesp
Westwoud
Number
%
120
2
5
34
119
68
26
3
1
38
3
3
1
1,202
13
48
210
5
21
5
10
34
68
29
2
4
6
3
7
21
19
499
349
3
16
71
7
15
5
6
1
3
11
9
15
3
1
121
65
1
68.1
50.0
100.0
79.4
66.0
66.7
30.8
100.0
100.0
76.3
100.0
100.0
100.0
46.4
41.7
77.1
62.6
100.0
66.7
100.0
50.0
62.5
54.4
50.0
50.0
75.0
33.3
66.7
42.9
23.8
89.5
55.5
56.5
100.0
46.7
46.5
28.6
53.3
100.0
66.7
100.0
33.3
100.0
66.7
53.3
0.0
100.0
51.7
20.0
100.0
Number
Zuilen
Zuid-Holland
Alblasserdam
Alkemade
Alphen aan de Rijn
Ameide
Asperen
Bergschenhoek
Bodegraven
Boskoop
Brielle
Delft
Dirksland
Dordrecht
Gorinchem
Gouda
’s-Gravendeel
’s-Gravenhage
Hardinxveld
Heenvliet
Hellevoetsluis
Hillegom
Krimpen aan den IJssel
Leerdam
Leiden
Maassluis
Middelharnis
Monster
Moordrecht
Naaldwijk
Nieuwerkerk aan den IJssel
Nieuwkoop
Nieuwveen
Noordwijk
Numansdorp
Oestgeest
Oostvoorne
Oud-Beijerland
Ouddorp
Oude Tonge
Pijnacker
Poortugaal
Reeuwijk
Ridderkerk
Rotterdam
Sassenheim
Schelluinen
Schiedam
Schoonhoven
%
68
55.9
25,648
7
7
75
2
1
5
24
10
22
148
9
297
106
199
1
13,829
4
3
2
2
4
5
367
7
37
5
4
5
4
4
4
27
3
47
6
37
1
7
19
29
7
5
8,368
5
1
200
15
32.4
71.4
100.0
26.7
0.0
100.0
100.0
37.5
70.0
27.3
54.4
22.2
38.9
35.8
38.9
100.0
35.4
0.0
0.0
50.0
50.0
25.0
60.0
51.1
28.6
25.0
0.0
0.0
20.0
25.0
75.0
25.0
38.5
0.0
71.7
0.0
31.4
0.0
14.3
78.9
96.6
42.9
40.0
23.6
100.0
100.0
33.5
64.3
continued
483
Table 1
continued
Westzaan
Wieringerwaard
Winkel
Wormer
Wormerveer
Zaandijk
Zandvoort
Zuid- en Noordschermer
Number
%
1
4
1
1
29
12
506
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
34.5
83.3
44.4
100.0
Schoonrewoerd
Sliedrecht
Sommelsdijk
Spijkenisse
Stolwijk
Strijen
Ter Aar
Vianen
Vlaardingen
Voorburg
Voorhout
Voorschoten
Waalwijk
Waddinxveen
Warmond
Wassenaar
Woerden
Zuidland
Zwammerdam
Zwijndrecht
Number
%
1
20
10
5
1
20
3
3
24
370
3
14
25
15
1
120
41
9
5
21
0.0
10.0
10.0
0.0
0.0
25.0
66.7
33.3
45.8
56.8
100.0
50.0
68.0
46.7
0.0
65.8
65.9
0.0
20.0
9.5
a
Since we could calculate the percentage of survivors in only 306 out of 496 municipalities, the number of Jews in the municipalities
adds up to 126,619 and not to the known total of 140,001. For details and sources see Croes and Tammes, “Gif laten wij niet
voortbestaan,” 572–77.
Limitations of time and money permitted us to examine only two factors at the
individual level: age and nationality. A higher age was correlated with a higher rate of
survival, but this increase was not linear: the size of the effect decreased with age. For
purposes of our study, the Jews were divided into three nationality groups: Dutch,
German, and other.38 On the whole, the Jews of “other” nationalities experienced the
highest rate of survival. In Amsterdam Jews with German nationality had the highest
rate of survival, though this may be related to the role of German Jews on the Jewish
Council,39 but on the national level there appears to have been no difference between
the Jews of Dutch and German nationality.
At the municipal level five factors significantly correlate with the survival rate
of Jews. The first was the percentage of local policemen who were pro-German.40
The greater this percentage, the lower the survival rate. The second factor was the
percentage of Catholics. Contrary to what was expected based on the literature, the
effect of this percentage was positive: Jews survived at a higher rate if relatively more
Catholics lived in their municipality. This intriguing result should lead to more
research at the local level. The third factor was the extent of polarization (the fragmentation of Dutch society along denominational lines).41 The effect of this factor on
the rate of survival was negative: a higher degree of polarization corresponded with
fewer Jewish survivors. The fourth factor was the percentage of converted Jews. The
positive effect of that factor on the rate of survival is not just an indication that
484
Figure 1. Number of Jews in October 1941 and Survival Rate by Province
converts to Christianity were more likely to survive than Jews who had not been baptized. It also means that other Jews were saved by making use of the social networks
of the converts, who bridged the Jewish and Gentile worlds.42 The fifth factor is the
date of the start of the local deportations. Contrary to the expectation, the rate of survival decreased significantly when this start happened later. It is not immediately
clear how to explain this result.
At the macro-level—the seven districts of the Sicherheitspolizei in the
Netherlands—the influence of two factors was researched: the general ferocity of
the seven regional bureaus, and the efforts they made to capture Jews in hiding. The
rate of survival was significantly lower in the district of the most aggressive bureau
than in the districts of the moderately aggressive bureaus.43 However, there appears
to have been no significant difference in the survival rate between the most and the
485
least aggressive bureaus. With regard to the efforts of the bureaus to catch hidden
Jews, the district of the most active bureau was not necessarily the district with the
lowest rate of survival.44 Apparently, the rate was significantly lower in the districts of
the moderately active bureaus than in the districts of the most active. This could
indicate that the activity of the Sicherheitspolizei was concentrated precisely in those
districts where the regular deportations had shown less “success.”
The Meaning of Variation
The extent of the variation in the survival rate of Jews in the Netherlands means that
some of the common explanations in Dutch historiography for the small number of
survivors in that country can be ruled out. For example, since there was no variation
in the way the Jews were registered,45 the differences in municipal survival rates
contradict the notion that the Jews were doomed as soon as they were registered.
This is not surprising since the registration could at best make the persecution easier
to execute; it did not necessarily lead to “success.”
Other explanations referring to the role of the Dutch bureaucracy in general,
its executive branch, or the Dutch police, now seem doubtful. If the cooperation of
the Dutch civil servants was as complete and universal as is believed, while at the
same time so crucial to the low rates of survival, then why do the municipal survival
rates vary? As Tammes and I show,46 the National Socialists replaced many, but not
all, burgomasters during the occupation. It could be assumed that the degree of
cooperation was higher in municipalities where they did so and that the survival rate
of Jews was lower in these municipalities. However, our analysis showed that the
presence of pro-German burgomasters did not significantly affect the survival rate in
their municipalities.47
In fact, given the variation in the municipal survival rates, all current explanations have become less tenable. These explanations are based on the mean average
percentage of Jewish survival, so they presuppose two things: first and by default,
that there is so little variation in the survival rate that it can safely be ignored, which
appears not to be true; and second, that the explanation of the low survival rate is to
be found in factors that were influential at the national level. However, it should have
been an undertaking from the start to justify the focus on causes at the national level.
This is not just the case with the Netherlands. As Lieven Saerens has shown,48 the
rate of survival of Jews in Belgium varied, too: 65 percent in Luik, 63 percent in
Brussels, 58 percent in Charleroi, and just 35 percent in Antwerp. Local variations in
survival rates suggest that we change the question from “Why did so few Jews survive
in the Netherlands?” to “What factors influenced the chances of survival at the individual, municipal, regional, and higher levels?”
Implicitly, one could argue, some Dutch researchers already understood the
importance of local variables, at least to some extent, since they concentrate on
explanations that can be true only for Amsterdam. At the same time they sometimes
486
treat these factors as though they applied to the country as a whole. Griffioen and
Zeller contend, for instance, that the system of temporary exemptions from deportation can explain the low survival rate of the Jews in the Netherlands in general. They
argue that this system meant that Jews attempted to obtain exemptions instead of
looking for places to hide. However, this factor can have been really influential only
in Amsterdam, since few exemptions were given to Jews living outside this city. Only
one-tenth of the so-called Rüstungsjuden, i.e., those with “Rüstungssperre,” temporary exemptions granted to workers needed for the German war effort, lived outside
Amsterdam. Only one-third of the temporary exemptions handed out by the Jewish
Council ended up outside Amsterdam. In November 1942 the Jews outside Amsterdam
had to share 12,800 temporary exemptions, while the Jews in Amsterdam had about
28,800.49 Starting in November 1942, however, the Rüstungssperre were phased out.
Furthermore, half of the temporary exemptions provided by the Jewish Council were
revoked before April 1943. Table 2 shows that on April 11, 1943, a total of 8,564
employees of the Council were still exempted, and with them 4,021 spouses and
3,047 children. More than 93 percent of these lived in Amsterdam.50 So, while it is not
unlikely that the temporary exemptions could have influenced the thinking of Jews in
Amsterdam, it seems rather unlikely this played the same role for Jews outside that
city. Although 57 percent of the Jews in the Netherlands lived in Amsterdam, this
leaves open to discussion the generalization regarding the country-wide role of the system of temporary exemptions from deportation.
One still may well wonder how important the temporary exemptions from
deportation were even for Amsterdam. Despite the availability of these temporary
exemptions, many Jews in Amsterdam were already trying to survive by hiding in
1942—many more than previously has been assumed.51 From September 1942
onward about half of the Jews ordered to report for transport to Westerbork refused
to show up even though they knew they could be punished for this by being sent to
Mauthausen, a concentration camp known to mean certain death. Furthermore, survival rates in other municipalities are low too, although temporary exemptions could
Table 2
Exempted Officials of the Jewish Council, Spouses, and Children, April 11, 1943
Town/Province
Jewish Council
Employees
Partners
Children
% of Total
Exempted
Amsterdam
Den Haag
Rotterdam
Utrecht (city)
Noord-Holland (province)
Zuid-Holland (province)
Utrecht (province)
Total
8,000
312
126
42
33
20
31
8,564
3,800
73
68
23
18
15
24
4,021
2,750
148
64
31
18
15
21
3,047
93.1
3.4
1.7
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.5
100.0
487
not have played an important role there. Griffioen and Zeller themselves cannot rule
out alternative explanations for the low survival rate of the Amsterdam Jews: perhaps
these Jews had more trouble finding places to hide; perhaps, as I will argue below,
the persecution here was especially fierce.
Current Explanations Not Corroborated
The problem is not just that some of the current explanations for the low survival rate
of Jews in the Netherlands focus on one city instead of the entire country (as, for
example, in discussions of the temporary exemptions). Nor is it that other explanatory factors do not vary by locality, and therefore cannot explain variation in survival
rates (i.e., the almost complete registration of the Jews). Some supposedly explanatory factors that do vary among municipalities do not do so in correlation with local
survival rates. This means that their influence on this survival rate should be
doubted.
Take the obedience-to-authority explanation of Blom and Moore: because the
Dutch were supposedly more obedient than the French and Belgians, there was less
resistance against the persecutions, resulting in a lower survival rate. Tammes and
I investigated whether this explanation held true at the local level, whether the municipal degree of obedience to authority correlated with differences in the local survival
rate.52 If it could be shown that such a mechanism existed and was at work at the
local level, this would make more convincing the argument that the same mechanism
played a role in differences between countries.
To assess the degree of obedience to authority, Tammes and I divided the local
percentage of voters adhering to one of the Christian denominations by the percentage of votes for the political party that corresponded with this denomination, the
party for which the adherents of the denomination were called upon to vote by their
preachers.53 Thus, to express the obedience to authority of the Catholics at the local
level we divided the local percentage of Catholics in the census of 1930 by the local
percentage of votes for the Catholic Party in the elections of 1939. Similarly, we
divided the local percentage of Protestants by the local percentage of votes for the
Protestant parties. To measure the obedience to authority of the Christians in general we divided the total local percentage of Christians by the total local percentage
of votes for the confessional parties. If every Christian—Catholic or Protestant—did
what he was supposed to do, what his religious leaders told him to do, all three fractions would equal one or close to one. However this is not the case. Furthermore,
given that the fractions vary among municipalities, the rate of obedience to authority
was not the same everywhere.
To see whether Blom’s and Moore’s obedience-to-authority hypothesis could
be corroborated, Tammes and I tested whether there existed a statistically significant
relationship between the local degree of obedience to authority and the local survival
rate of Jews.54 The only fraction that showed such a correlation to the survival rate
488
was that for the Christian community as a whole. But this correlation was the opposite of what was expected: more obedience to authority corresponded to a higher
percentage of survivors instead of a lower one. Could it be that Christians who were
more obedient to authority were more inclined to help the persecuted? These
intriguing results raise questions regarding the obedience-to-authority hypothesis,
and in particular the question of who was obedient to whom, under what conditions,
and with what effects. Blom and Moore are very speculative in this regard and provide
no evidence.
The researchers mentioned above believe that antisemitism can in some measure explain the difference between the Netherlands and other Western European
countries in the relative number of surviving Jews. It motivated the German officials
in their unrelenting attempts to make the Netherlands “Judenrein,” free of Jews.55 At
the same time, Blom thinks that the relative lack of antisemitism in the Dutch population might have given the Jews a false sense of security.56 Building on this last idea,
one would expect somewhat counter-intuitively that when the local degree of antisemitism was high, the survival rate of the Jews was high as well. Looking at the 1939
elections and using the percentage of votes cast for the Dutch National Socialist
Movement (Nationaal Socialistische Beweging, NSB) as an indicator of the local rate
of antisemitism, Tammes and I tested to see whether this was the case.57 It was not:
analysis showed that there was no statistically significant relationship between the local
antisemitism rate and the local survival rate. This result makes less plausible the idea
that national differences in the survival rate of Jews can be explained by the “lack” of
antisemitism.
Another issue the above-mentioned researchers agree on is the relative lack of
resistance in the Netherlands prior to May 1943. The result supposedly was that until
that time Jews had had trouble finding places to hide and that, consequently, few of
them managed to go underground. This changed following the April–May strike of
1943. After the bloody suppression of this strike a few hundred thousand Dutchmen
avoiding labor conscription proved that it was relatively easy to go underground. By
this time, however, most of the Jews who would not survive the German occupation
had already been killed. They had needed hiding places when they were not yet
available.
This line of reasoning appears often in modern Dutch historiography. All the
same, there are small differences. Moore stresses that the majority of the Jews in the
Netherlands did not attempt to go underground,58 seemingly underlining the passivity of the Jews themselves. Griffioen and Zeller contrast the lack of resistance in the
Netherlands with the situation in Belgium, where there was more organized resistance on the part of the Jews themselves and at an earlier time. Nonetheless, when it
comes to the numbers involved, Griffioen and Zeller think that the number of Jews
who attempted to survive in hiding in Belgium equals the number in the Netherlands,
about 25,000.59
489
As a percentage of the population, the Belgian total is much higher than the
Dutch. All the same, the absolute numbers suggest that passivity and lack of resistance in the Netherlands are stressed too much in explaining the low survival rate of
the Jews. This speculation becomes more plausible when one realizes that the
number of Jews who attempted to hide is an approximation based on flawed German
figures.60 This makes underestimation inevitable. A conservative educated guess, taking into account sources ignored until now, suggests that at least 28,000 Jews went
underground.61 The real number of Jews who attempted to survive in hiding was
probably higher, maybe thousands higher. Furthermore, it is clear that Jews were
hiding in large numbers from the start of the deportations to the destruction camps
in July 1942.62 The argument that Jews did not hide at a relatively early time, either
because of their supposed passivity, the system of temporary exemptions from deportation, or the difficulty of finding places to hide, simply does not hold up under scrutiny.63
There is no new evidence to suggest that more Jews survived in hiding, so more
Jews must have been arrested in hiding than the numbers previously given. At least
12,000 were apprehended in hiding, and there are indications that the real number
could have been several thousand higher.64
New Explanations
All estimates of the numbers of Jews caught in hiding depend on the quality of the
registration of the so-called Straffälle, Jews liable for punishment for having hidden
(approximately 80 percent of the cases) or for other “crimes.” This registration was
performed by the Jewish administration in Westerbork and is known to have been
incomplete. Until April 1943 those Jews designated as Straffälle sometimes were not
registered as such on arrival in Westerbork. Having been warned by Jews who
worked in the administration, they managed to get rid of their call-up orders or identity cards, which were marked by the “S” for Straffall. In April 1943 the Sicherheitspolizei revised its registration system and, instead of marking the call-up order or
identity card, started to send lists of Straffälle to Westerbork. At the same time, quite
often the regional bureau of the Sicherheitspolizei sent Straffälle to Westerbork without designating them as such. In Rotterdam at least 897 Jews were arrested in hiding,
but according to the Westerbork registers only 285 Jews from Rotterdam arrived in
Westerbork as Straffälle (of whom approximately 80 percent were caught in hiding).
This means that in the case of Rotterdam the official numbers underestimate by
more than three times the number of Jews caught while hiding.65
It is hardly likely that only the Germans in Rotterdam were sloppy when it
came to registering the Jews caught in hiding, though the evidence for Rotterdam is
clearest. In the case of Amsterdam, 5,094 Jews were registered in Westerbork as
Straffälle. However, there are indications that the hunt for Jews in hiding in Amsterdam
was more severe than this number implies, or than was previously appreciated.
Branches of the Dutch police arrested about 6,000 Jews66 in that city while the
490
Kolonne Henneicke, a group of fifty-four Dutch Nazis who hunted down Jews for
blood money, caught about 8,370.67 Some of this total of 14,370 Jews would have
ended up among and been counted as part of the 5,094 Straffälle, but it is clear that
this cannot have been the case with all of them. So what did happen?
To the Germans, it did not matter whether the Jews were in hiding or not—they
were condemned to death anyway. But German officials wanted as many Jews as
possible to believe they risked severe punishment if caught in hiding so that they
would not go underground. To obtain this result it was not necessary to have a
complete register of the Jews caught in hiding. While it is known that at least some of
the Jews whom Wim (Willem) Henneicke and his colleagues arrested were in hiding,
the Germans usually did not register them as Straffälle. It is not known in how many
cases they did or did not do so. It is also not known how many of the 6,000 Jews the
Dutch police captured in Amsterdam were in hiding and how many of them were
registered as Straffälle.68
The number of Jews who survived the German occupation in hiding is estimated to have been 16,100.69 At a minimum around 12,000 Jews were apprehended
in hiding.70 Consequently, the Sicherheitspolizei and its Dutch allies were more successful in hunting down Jews than previously was appreciated. Comparison with the
Belgian case is illustrative. As with the Netherlands, there are no definite figures on
the number of Jews caught in hiding in Belgium. However, a rough literature-based
approximation is possible. After the violent raids in September and October 1942,
most of the remaining Jews in Belgium—30,000 out of a total of 40,000—went into
hiding.71 If it is assumed that all the Jews deported during 1943 and 1944 were
caught in hiding—that is, apart from the 1,114 previously exempted Jews who for the
most part were rounded up in September 194372—the maximum number of arrested
hidden Jews is 7,740. To this, we have to add the 500 arrested hidden Jews who were
going to be deported but were saved because of the turmoil during the last days of
the occupation of Belgium.73 So the number of Jews arrested in hiding in Belgium
was at most 8,240. Compared with the minimum number of 12,000 arrested in the
Netherlands out of a population of Jews in hiding that was approximately of the same
size, this gives an idea of the differences in the “success” of the Sicherheitspolizei in
both countries.74
Success in the hunt for hidden Jews in the Netherlands hypothetically
depended on at least three things: the efforts of the perpetrators, the help of the
Dutch population, and, perhaps, the efforts of the Jews to remain unnoticed. To start
with the last factor: without testimony by substantial numbers of Jews who were
caught, it is hard to generalize about the mechanisms that conduced toward or
against success in hiding. But the relatively high survival rate of foreign Jews in
Belgium suggests that German Jews in the Netherlands might have survived disproportionately. German Jews outside Germany knew what they had fled, and perhaps
they took more or better measures to save themselves.75
491
In Belgium the German Jews certainly did. They were organized by 1942 and
established links with the Belgian resistance.76 It would not seem unlikely that the
behavior of German Jews in the Netherlands followed the same pattern and that they
subsequently had a higher survival rate than the Dutch Jews. However, apart from
Amsterdam, with its special circumstance of having many German Jews on the Jewish
Council—people who may have positively influenced the chances of survival of their
compatriots77—in fact, German Jews in the Netherlands were not more likely to
survive than Dutch Jews.78 We have no definitive answer to the question of the
extent to which the hidden Jews themselves could influence their chances of survival.
But if one accepts the notion that (drawing upon the Belgian case) German Jews had
a greater likelihood of survival, then one would also have to deal with the fact that
this apparently was not the case in the greater part of the Netherlands. Future research
might throw more light on this subject.
The second factor, the betrayal of Jews by Dutch Gentiles, is probably even
harder to research. While it is clear that betrayal was common, its scale and the
extent of its role remain unknown. It is generally assumed that betrayers usually
acted on National Socialist and antisemitic motives.79 This assumption would imply
that fewer Jews would survive in municipalities with more antisemites. Since the
NSB was an explicitly antisemitic movement at least since 1937,80 it appears reasonable to expect that a higher percentage of votes for the NSB in any place during the
elections of 193981 correlates with a lower percentage of Jewish survivors.82 However, as we noted above, this proved not to be the case: statistically speaking, there
was no relationship between the local percentage of votes for the NSB and the local
survival rate.83 This could be read as an indication that the motives for betrayal might
have included things other than antisemitism. Betrayals reflected various motives,
the most important of which may have been to hurt the people who were hiding the
Jews.84 Future research might clarify this matter too.
The third factor is the efforts of the Sicherheitspolizei and its allies. It is clear
that the regional Sicherheitspolizei bureaus in the Netherlands differed in their
efforts to capture Jews in hiding. According to the registers in the Westerbork
archive, the bureau in Maastricht was responsible for the arrest of fifty-two Jews
from April 1943 to the liberation. This includes Jews, arrested by the Dutch police,
who were handed over to the Germans. Compared to the 5,094 Straffälle the
Amsterdam bureau is known to have sent to Westerbork during the same interval
(including Jews arrested by the Dutch police and the Kolonne Henneicke), this number appears small. And in fact, when the size of the Jewish population under both
bureaus is taken into account, the success of the Amsterdam bureau is still ten times
greater than Maastricht’s.85 As mentioned before, for the whole of the Netherlands,
there are indications that the “success” rate of the seven regional bureaus of the
Sicherheitspolizei was correlated with the rate of survival that Jews experienced,
more “success” meaning fewer survivors.86
492
Tammes and I have shown that in the province of Overijssel Jews living in
municipalities with a higher level of resistance had a lower rate of survival.87 This
result appears counter-intuitive, but was likely an unintended consequence of the
methods of the Sicherheitspolizei, whose primary task in the Netherlands was to
fight the resistance. The Sicherheitspolizei focused on the regions where resistance
networks were the most active. It seems likely that the Sicherheitspolizei was thus
drawn to locations where Jews were being hidden. However, for this line of reasoning to be true we have to assume that the Jews hid in the municipalities where they
were registered; otherwise, the local level of resistance and the local survival rate of
Jews could not be correlated. It is, however, unknown to what extent Jews hid locally,
but the fact that local factors such as the composition of social networks influenced
the survival rates of Jews (see above) suggests that most Jews did hide in their municipalities. At the same time, there is an alternative explanation. The high level of
resistance could be a reaction to a relatively high degree of local persecution of the
Jews earlier. More research would be needed to clarify this matter.
Two additional indicators suggest that the Sicherheitspolizei played a significant role in the rate of Jewish survival. The surviving records of the Sicherheitspolizei
do not give clear statements of the numbers of Dutch Gentiles arrested for helping
Jews in hiding, but they do give some clues. A reinterpretation of known statistics
results in the estimation that on May 9, 1943, 1,604 Gentiles88 were incarcerated for
helping Jews. This amounted to 30 percent of all the Dutch Gentiles held in “protective custody” at that time, not a small proportion (usually, if Gentiles who helped
Jews were punished, they were punished with short-term Schutzhaft, or protective
custody; only severe cases were sent to concentration camps in Germany). Slightly
more than a year later, the number had increased to 1,997 Gentiles,89 20 percent of
the total number at that time.90 Although these statistics are not conclusive, they still
suggest the extent of help given to Jews as well as that of the Sicherheitspolizei’s
retaliation.91
A third indication of the Sicherheitspolizei’s importance is the relatively high
rate of survival in the province of Utrecht, where it played a very limited role in the
hunt for Jews in hiding, at least until 1944.92 The bulk of the task of catching Jews in
hiding in the province of Utrecht during the occupation fell to the Dutch police or, to
be more precise: to a special branch of the Utrecht detective force. The detectives
involved were only loosely supervised, and this enabled them to act as they thought
fit. This, for instance, meant that many Jews went unharmed, with or without payment
to the detectives.93 The hunt for Jews in hiding in the province of Utrecht caught on
rather late. It appears that this delay contributed to the high rate of survival there.
Although Dutch historiography sometimes gives the impression that the history of the persecution of the Jews during the Second World War has been written,
many questions are still open and deserve to be answered. This is especially true
regarding the history of the Jews who went into hiding but tragically failed to survive.
493
Conclusion
The extent of the local variation in the survival rate of Jews during the Holocaust in
the Netherlands suggests that explanations of national differences in survival rates
cannot remain limited to the national level of analysis. Since local survival rates varied widely, some of the most common explanations of the low survival rate for the
Netherlands as a whole cannot be true. This is, for instance, the case with the almost
complete registration of the Jews in this country.
This article similarly casts doubt on the “deference-to-authority” hypothesis,
which holds that the Dutch bureaucracy and population by and large cooperated
with the occupiers out of obedience. Our research shows that the local degree of
obedience to authority is not correlated with the local Jewish survival rate. The idea
that the low survival rate of the Jews was the result of a lack of resistance on the part
of the Jews themselves, as well as on the part of the Gentiles, has to be revised too.
This notion is based on German figures pertaining to Jews arrested while they were
in hiding. These German figures are flawed; using them uncritically results in underestimation of the number of Jews who hid but in the end did not survive.
A likely candidate for the explanation of the high victimization rate in the
Netherlands is the ferocious hunt for Jews in hiding in some parts of this country.
Until now, this cause has been little studied. The present article makes clear that it
deserves more attention.
Acknowledgements
Correspondence to [email protected]. I thank the two reviewers and Michael
Gelb of the Center for Advanced Holocaust Studies for their comments, which helped
improve the article.
Notes
1. The most important work on this topic has been done by historians Johan Cornelis Hendrik
Blom, “The Persecution of the Jews in the Netherlands: A Comparative Western European
Perspective,” European History Quarterly 19 (1989): 333–51; Bob Moore, Victims and Survivors: The Nazi Persecution of the Jews in the Netherlands, 1940–1945 (London: Arnold, 1997);
and Pim Griffioen and Ron Zeller, “A Comparative Analysis of the Persecution of the Jews in
the Netherlands and Belgium during the Second World War,” Netherlands’ Journal of Social
Sciences 34, no. 2 (1998): 126–64.
2. Marnix Croes and Peter Tammes, “Gif laten wij niet voortbestaan”: Een onderzoek naar de
overlevingskansen van joden in de Nederlandse gemeenten, 1940–1945 (Amsterdam: Aksant,
2004), http://webdoc.ubn.kun.nl/mono/c/croes_m/gif_lawin.pdf. Summary in English, 593–608.
3. Blom, “The Persecution of the Jews,” 335.
4. Ibid., 338.
5. Ibid., 341.
6. Ibid., 342.
494
7. Arend Lijphart, The Politics of Accommodation: Pluralism and Democracy in the Netherlands
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968).
8. Blom, “The Persecution of the Jews,” 344–46.
9. Ibid., 342.
10. Ibid., 342–43.
11. Ibid., 343.
12. Ibid., 347–48.
13. Ibid., 347.
14. Moore, Victims and Survivors.
15. Ibid., 215.
16. Ibid., 217ff.
17. Ibid., 151.
18. Ibid.
19. Ibid., 172.
20. Ibid., 190ff.
21. Griffioen and Zeller, “A Comparative Analysis.”
22. Ibid., 131ff.
23. Ibid., 134–36.
24. Ibid., 140–43.
25. Ibid., 141.
26. Oorlogsgravenstichtung, In Memoriam-Lezecher (The Hague: SDU, 1995). This book is a
compilation of the memorial books of the Oorlogsgravenstichting pertaining to Jews.
27. Louis de Jong, Het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden in de Tweede Wereldoorlog (The Hague:
Martinus Nijhoff, 1969–94, in fourteen parts), pt. 4 (1972), 874–75.
28. People who had two grandparents of Jewish descent were also considered Jews if they
were married to a Jew or when they belonged to a Jewish congregation.
29. Croes and Tammes, “Gif laten wij niet voortbestaan,” 126–29.
30. Marnix Croes and Peter Tammes, “De locale percentages overlevenden van de jodenvervolging in Nederland,” Groniek 167 (2005); Croes and Tammes, “Gif laten wij niet
voortbestaan,” 33.
32. Circular (26-4-1946) of the RvB. Tresoar, Archive of the Commissaris der Koningin in
Friesland file 469.
33. Croes and Tammes, “Gif laten wij niet voortbestaan,” 39–41, 572–77.
495
34. Gerhard Hirschfeld, “Niederlande” in Dimension des Völkermords. Die Zahl der jüdischen Opfer des Nationalsozialismus, ed. Wolfgang Benz (Munich: Oldenbourg, 1991), 137–66,
here 165.
35. Croes and Tammes, “Gif laten wij niet voortbestaan,” 42.
36. We used the first two characters of the first name and family name, and sometimes of the
maiden name, as well as the date of birth, to check whether individuals mentioned in the registration lists appeared in In Memoriam as well. Whenever we had a match this meant that the
individual had been killed. However, one mistake in either the date of birth or the first two
characters of one of the names in one of the databases was enough to prevent a match and
cause the mistaken conclusion that the individual had survived.
38. Of the 140,001 Jews in the Netherlands, almost 118,500 had Dutch citizenship, about
14,500 German, and approximately 7,300 some other.
39. Moore, Victims and Survivors, 216–17.
40. To measure the local percentage of pro-German policemen, we relied on the number of
policemen fired after the war because of their behavior or attitude during the war. Historians
sometimes question the reliability of these figures. The extent of the purge is supposed to have
reflected the inclinations of local purge committees. However, these historians often overlook
various details: complaints by members of the public could start investigations; policemen who
were prosecuted or who were members of a National Socialist organization were automatically
fired; and the fact that the Ministry of Justice supervised and centralized the purge process
and took a uniform approach. Whenever it was thought necessary, the research of the local
committees was augmented and improved. Researchers have supposed the purge was flawed
in two municipalities in particular: Amsterdam (Guus Meershoek, Dienaren van het gezag: De
Amsterdamse politie tijdens de bezetting [Amsterdam: Van Gennep, 1999], 355–59); and Utrecht
(Arnold Vernooij, Grenzen aan gehoorzaamheid: Houding en gedrag van de Utrechtse politie
tijdens de Duitse bezetting [Utrecht: Trezoor, 1985], 127–31). However, the origin of the numbers
on which this supposition is based remains unclear. Anyway, these numbers are not derived
from the original purge files, which paint a rather different picture (Croes and Tammes, “Gif
laten wij niet voortbestaan,” 350–55). Contrary to what has been asserted, the numerical results
of the purge of the police in Amsterdam and Utrecht do not stand out from other municipalities. Furthermore, the purge results do not give the impression of leniency. See Marnix Croes,
“The Dutch Police and the Persecution of Jews in the Netherlands during the German
Occupation, 1940–1945” in Local Government in Occupied Europe (1939–1945), ed. Bruno de
Wever, Herman van Goethem, and Nico Wouters (Gent: Academia Press, 2006), 67–82.
41. To measure the degree of polarization, the extent to which Gentile men married females
belonging to another denomination was used (Croes and Tammes, “Gif laten wij niet voortbestaan,” 418–19).
42. Ibid., 412.
43. Most violent bureau: Groningen (responsible for the provinces of Groningen, Friesland,
and Drenthe). Moderately violent bureaus: Amsterdam (responsible for the provinces of NoordHolland and Utrecht); The Hague (responsible for The Hague and its surroundings); and
Rotterdam (responsible for the province of Zuid-Holland excluding The Hague and surroundings).
496
Least violent bureaus: Arnhem (responsible for the provinces of Gelderland and Overijssel);
’s-Hertogenbosch (responsible for the provinces of Noord-Brabant and Zeeland); and
Maastricht (responsible for the province of Limburg).
44. Most aggressive bureaus: Amsterdam and The Hague. Moderately aggressive
bureaus: Arnhem; ’s-Hertogenbosch; Groningen; and Rotterdam. Least aggressive bureau:
Maastricht.
45. Peter Tammes, “Nederlandse burgemeesters en de vervolging van joden,” in Wat toeval
leek te zijn, maar niet was: De organisatie van de jodenvervolging in Nederland, ed. Henk Flap
and Marnix Croes (Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis, 2001), 69–94.
47. Ibid., 518.
48. Lieven Saerens, Vreemdelingen in een wereldstad: Een geschiedenis van Antwerpen en
zijn joodse bevolking (1880–1944) (Tielt: Lannoo, 2000), 648.
49. Johannes Houwink ten Cate, “Het jongere deel: Demografische en sociale kenmerken van
het jodendom in Nederland tijdens de vervolging,” in Oorlogsdocumentatie ’40/’45: Jaarboek
van het Rijksinstituut voor Oorlogsdocumentatie, ed. David Barnouw, Dick van Galen Last,
and Johannes Houwink ten Cate (Zutphen: Walberg Pers 1989), 9–66.
50. Marnix Croes, “Jodenvervolging in Utrecht,” in Flap and Croes, Wat toeval leek te zijn,
maar niet was, 39–68; D. Cohen to the Zentralstelle für jüdische Auswanderung (11–4-1943)
Netherlands Institute on War Documentation (hereafter NIOD), 182:6, folder B.
51. Croes and Tammes, “Gif laten wij niet voortbestaan,” 173–96. Marnix Croes, “The
Netherlands 1942–1945: Survival in Hiding and the Hunt for Hidden Jews,” Netherlands’
Journal of Social Sciences 40, no. 2 (2004): 157–75.
53. Called “political orthodoxy,” this measure is also used in political science. One might argue
that obedience to authority could be measured better in a different way. But if that is so, one
might wonder why Blom and Moore eschew measurement and measuring.
55. However not every German official was unrelenting. Regarding the Sicherheitspolizei, the
bureaus differed widely in their relentlessness. Ibid., 140–260.
56. Blom, “Persecution of the Jews in the Netherlands,” 342.
57. Croes and Tammes, “Gif laten wij niet voortbestaan,” 369–70, 511ff.
58. Moore, Victims and Survivors, 151.
59. Griffioen and Zeller, “A Comparative Analysis,” 140–44.
60. Croes, “The Netherlands 1942–1945.”
61. Ibid.
62. Ibid., 159–61.
497
63. It should be stressed that Jews were less passive than they sometimes are made to appear.
Large numbers, for instance, refused to show up for transport to Westerbork, knowing well
that they risked death by disobeying and forcing the Germans to seek them at their homes
instead.
64. Croes, “The Netherlands 1942–1945.”
65. Ibid.
66. Official report of 20–12-1949, Ministry of Justice (MvJ), Centraal Archief Bijzondere
Rechtspleging (CABR, currently located in the National Archive), file 65229.
67. Bericht 9–6-1943, MvJ, CABR, file 25135, and official report of 22–3-1948, MvJ, CABR,
file 65229.
69. Houwink ten Cate, “Het jongere deel,” 125.
71. Maxime Steinberg, Le dossier Bruxelles-Auschwitz: La police SS et l’extermination des
Juifs de Belgique (Brussels: Le Comité, 1980), 149.
72. Maxime Steinberg, L’étoile et le fusil: La traque des Juifs, 1942–1944 (two vols.) (Brussels:
Vie ouvrière, 1986), vol. 2, 222ff.
73. Maxime Steinberg, Uitroeiing, redding en verzet van de joden in België (Brussels:
Huldecomité van de Joden van België aan hun helden en redders, 1979), 21.
74. Cf. Jozef Michman, “Historical Introduction,” in The Encyclopedia of the Righteous
among the Nations: Rescuers of Jews during the Holocaust: The Netherlands, ed. Jozef Michman and Bert-Jan Flim (two vols.) (Jerusalem: Yad Vashem, 2004), vol. 1, xviii–xxix.
75. Cf. Marjolein J. Schenkel, De Twentse paradox: De lotgevallen van de joodse bevolking
van Hengelo en Enschede tijdens de Tweede Wereldoorlog (Zutphen: Walberg Pers, 2003),
137.
76. Griffioen and Zeller, “A Comparative Analysis.” This is also true for the Jewish refugees
from Eastern Europe in Belgium.
77. Moore, Victims and Survivors, 217ff.
79. Some evidence does seem to support this assumption, but the extent to which such
motivation was at work remains unknown.
80. Ronald Havenaar, De NSB tussen nationalisme en ‘volkse’ solidariteit: De vooroorlogse
ideologie van de Nationaal Socialistishe Beweging in Nederland (The Hague: Staatsuitgeverij,
1983).
81. Unpublished election results, Central Bureau of Statistics.
82. This is not to say that all people who voted for the NSB in 1939 were antisemites, but that
antisemites were more likely to vote for the NSB than for other parties. The radicalization of
the NSB, which made it into an explicitly antisemitic movement, cost it half its votes in the
498
1937 and 1939 elections compared to 1935. See Havenaar, De NSB tussen nationalisme en
‘volkse’ solidariteit.
84. Croes, “Jodenvervolging in Utrecht.”
86. Ibid., 516–25. This might appear to be a truism, but it should be noted that many other
factors played a positive or negative role and that the overall probability of survival combines
all. It deserves special emphasis that the persecution consisted of two parallel processes: the
deportation of the Jews who did not go into hiding, and the hunt for those who did. These processes influenced each other, and Jews and Gentiles reacted in myriad ways to both. This is the
theory of Schenkel, De Twentse paradox, 141. She believes that as a result of some early
roundups in the eastern part of the Netherlands in 1941 both Jews and Gentiles took more and
earlier counter-measures, resulting in a relatively higher survival rate there.
88. Meldungen aus den Niederlanden 143 (9–5-1943), NIOD, 77–85: 37B.
89. Ibid., 18 (13–8-1944), NIOD, 77–85: 37B.
90. Croes and Tammes, “Gif laten wij niet voortbestaan,” 195. The relative decline in the proportion should be seen against the background of increasing resistance as the Allied armies
approached.
91. In this context one should bear in mind that the numbers of people this article cites as having
been arrested for helping Jews probably do not include people who did no more than house
Jewish fugitives. It appears that often one had to do more than that to be incarcerated.
92. Croes, “Jodenvervolging in Utrecht”; Marnix Croes, “Jodenjacht in de provincie Utrecht,”
Oud-Utrecht 1 (2004): 12–18.
93. Ibid.
499

The Holocaust in the Netherlands and the Rate of Jewish Survival

Transcription

Similar documents

Berdychiv - The Radov Chronicles

Take 6 bottles home, Today!

Jeanette Kuvin Oren

pdf file - Salvation is from the Jews

Slideshow Part 2 - gcgconsult [at] n-star

in Mevaseret Zion - Tikkun Ministries International

398 mm × 210 mm

THE 9TH OF AV

Holocaust Fake Pics - Exposed!